User:Theaphillips/Truly Devious/Julianajoy4 Peer Review

General info
Theaphillips
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Theaphillips/Truly Devious
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Lead
At first glance, it is unclear to me what the lead is. Is the first section entitled "Article Draft" supposed to be the lead section? I think that formatting would help clear this up. I would recommend bolding the name of the novel in the first sentence. The very first sentence is clear, concise, and gets right to the point. I like it. I also enjoy the rest of your lead section. I think that it includes a great summary of the book, saying not too much but just enough. Another suggestion I have is to hyperlink certain words like the author's name, the publisher, the other books in the series, the genre of the book, and anything else relevant that has a Wikipedia page. What is really helpful is going to other the Wikipedia pages of novels and simulating the format.

Content
I have never read this book so I would not know if there was some big aspect of the plot missing, but from what I am reading it seems like this is a balanced and clear summary of the plot of the novel. This section seems like the perfect length and all the content is relevant. I think there are a few grammatical things that would make it smoother to read, such as the addition of some commas, but overall the content of the plot section is great.

I like that you included sections of "reception" and "sequels" as well. I am wondering if you could expand a bit on reception. Is there any other information you could include about the general public's reception of the book, beyond just the awards? I am curious to know more in this section. In the sequels section, if any of those other books in the trilogy have Wikipedia pages you should hyperlink those.

Tone and Balance
The content all comes off in a neutral way. I do not sense any biased viewpoints or persuasion. You have a fairly objective topic so I don't think there is much that could be biased, but you did a great job of maintaining a neutral tone and good balance throughout the article.

Sources and References
Your sources appear to be reliable and good sources. However, you are on the lower end of amount of sources, so I think you should do more digging and research to try and see what other interesting information and facts you can find about this novel. The second source has some formatting and URL issue, so that should be fixed. I am curious about your in-text citations, as you only have 4. For example, is it true that everything between the [1] and [2] is all information from source [2]? I am wondering if it would be beneficial to intermix information from different sources throughout the article. Just something to consider.

Organization
The organization of the 3 sections is great. I do not see any spelling errors, and I think there are minor grammatical things that just need to be workshopped. I do think though that the formatting of your page could be improved. See the lead section feedback for more.

Images and Media
I would highly recommend adding in a book infobox. You can use a template to do this. I looked up Wikipedia pages from other novels, and it seems like they all have book infoboxes in the top right corner. I think you should definitely include this. Just look up any novel's Wikipedia page and take inspiration from that.

Overall impressions
Overall, your article looks fantastic! You did a phenomenal job being balanced, having good coverage, and being concise. I enjoyed reading you article. My biggest feedback would be fixing the formatting for easier readability. Great job!